Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 181 of 243 (313572)
05-19-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Hyroglyphx
05-19-2006 12:31 PM


Re: When rationalism fails
What do hermaphrodites have to do with the equation? Its amazing that more of them aren't born, being that all fetuses are androgenous leading to a dimorphism in the early stages of development. In any case, I'm not sure how this fits in to our conversation.
It was just a clarification of my statement to which you took exception. Merely a response to this:
quote:
We're currently discussing homosexuality which would obviously only occur in mammalian vertebrates.
No big deal.
Hermaphrodites are just another form of reproduction. Whiptail lizards are all female - they self-fertilize - for instance. The reason there aren't more examples of this type of reproduction probably is similar to why sex was invented in the first place. There appears to be a net opportunity cost related to parasitism, among other things, in asexual reproduction.
There should have been a comma in there, as in: 'Somebody, at least concede that its bizarre.' Meaning, 'Will someone, at the very least, admit that its bizarre?'
Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. I'm easily confused.
I said the 'root' of society, not the minor intricacies. The roots would include laws and social norms. All societies are virtually identical, without any coersion from other nations to assimilate. Its only methodologies that change from society to society.
That's just the point. Laws and social norms DO change, often radically, in any society over time. As I suggested, look at the differences within US society pre-WWII, post-WWII, and today. It gets even more different the further back in time you go. The laws and social norms of 1783 are very different than those of today.
You don't think the ToE has underpinnings and underscores of atheism at the heart of it? Apparently you take the Deist approach that, if there is a Creator, it made everything at the very beginning and does nothing else for all of eternity. Maybe this paper will help aggrandize my view.
Sorry, I'm not a deist. And no, I don't think the ToE says anything about philosophy or metaphysics. It's merely (hah!) a comprehensive framework for understanding the the diversity of life.
Thanks for the article. I haven't read that particular Woodmorappe essay. I'd just like to point out that Darwin's comment that Woodmorappe referenced concerning the lack of necessity for including the supernatural refers to the fact that his theory uses natural explanations for diversity. He was arguing against ad hoc explanations, not against the existence of the divine. And he was right on this one - the diversity of life doesn't require or presuppose the existence of the divine.
In 'Origins', (the book that I've never read), Darwin goes into the differences between domestication and natural adaptations. He delineates around the two in hopes to eventually marry one another. But even he recognized that out of all these alleged gadations, everything appears abruptly. I would agree that Linneus and Darwin recognized what everyone could plainly see; that organimism can create subspecies.
"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?...Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?-Charles Darwin
Right. The quote is from the introduction to Chapter VI. You need some more ellipses though, each of those is taken from a separate paragraph. Interestingly, he also mentions a fourth problem - sterile hybrids at the species level vs. fertile hybrids at the variety level. Of course, the latter poses a problem for creationists because it opens the possibility that there are gradations in relationships between different organisms. An idea that could lead to the evils of macroevolution, among other things. Probably why most creationist website leave that last one off. In any case, as you'll know from your reading of the book, Darwin then spends the next three chapters discussing the details of why these four issues aren't a real problem. I always thought it was pretty smart of him to openly acknowledge potential problems, and then proceed to justify his reasoning in such detail.
If evolution only goes in one direction, from simpler to more complex, then evolution refers to a refining over time, which clearly expresses a direction. You can object to "highly evolved" but until you can explain it in other terms, everyone will continue to know exactly what it implicitly means.
That's the whole point: evolution doesn't go in any particular "direction". It doesn't always proceed from simpler to complex. It doesn't refer to "refining" over time (except in the sense that any population that survives over time will adapt to its immediate surroundings). And I do object to the term "highly evolved". Most evolutionary biologists use the term "derived" vs. "basal" when they are discussing characteristics - for instance those that appeared later in time than others.
I'm not suggesting that Darwin was an overt or covert bigot. I'm using simple logic here. If the general direction is more intelligence, more fitness, better suitability to the enviornment, then there is unquestionably a direction from lesser to greater. What are the implications as they relate to races? One race is less evolved than another. There should be no ambiguity.
Well, I would say the "logic" you're using here is anything but as obvious as you're trying to make out. In the first place, adaptation as I've mentioned is is relative to the particular environment. If the environment favors "simpler" organisms (say, as in the evolution of barnacles from free-swimming organism to sessile), then evolution goes compex => simple(r). The "direction" you postulate here is falsified by the existence of the opposite.
With reference to your questions on race (and I'm assuming here you're talking about different human populations, not the taxonomic classification "race"), there is no implication. Certainly within human populations, no "race" is more or less evolved than any other. We're all the same species, at the same evolutionary plateau. This is made quite clear in Descent of Man by the way - a book that was almost more controversial at the time than Origin. Why controversial? Because it absolutely and unequivocally stressed the evolutionary "equality" of all humans. Not a concept that British imperialists and American "manifest destiny-ists" wanted to contemplate.
If Neanderthals lived before modern humans existed, and modern humans branched out of Neanderthal, then modern man is more highly evolved. According to theory, Neanderthal couldn't compete with modern mans intellect. And so a line of demarcation is drawn in the sand. We see the same drivel being played out today with intelligence quotients and whatnot even today. Its the Us :vs: Them mentality.
That brings up a very interesting point. In the first place, I'd like to point out that modern humans didn't evolve from Neanderthals. They are two separate species, both of whom appear to have derived from separate populations of Homo erectus in two different locations: Neanderthal in Europe, modern humans in Africa. In other words, it was an "African" invasion of Europe that directly or indirectly wiped out the first Europeans. How's that for upsetting the racist card, eh? By the ludicrous categorization of "race" used by the people who want to pretend evolution = racisim, it was the Africans that were "more evolved" than the Europeans. Gotta love science...
That was quite a few posts ago, and if I hit the 'back' button, I'm liable to lose everything I've just typed. I think what I was referring to was subspecies, as in small adaptations due to isolation, inbredding, or natural selection. A taxonomic niche could just about anything that enhances survival in whatever enviornment, i.e. white fur when living in the Arctic. Some foxes have it and some don't. If you stuck a typical redtail fox in the arctic, he'd probably be less likely to deal with the cold or predators than his Arctic cousin. But beyond that, I can't remember what the conversation was about.
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, it's hard to keep track sometimes when you have so many people to respond to. It was a pretty minor point, IIRC. For future reference if you want to refer to this kind of adaptation again, a better term is "ecological niche", or just "niche". It was your use of "taxonomic" that threw me.
Edited by Quetzal, : fixed quoting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 12:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 243 (313573)
05-19-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Alasdair
05-18-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
I think that what he means to say is that when females get the same genes that bring about homosexuality in males, they get improved fertility. If a female with these genes has offspring, then her offspring gets these genes - and those female offspring will have improved fertility, but the males will have an increased chance of becoming homosexuality. Make sense? I hope I got that right.
I know exactly what he means. I appreciate your clarification, nonetheless. If male homosexuality is indeed genetic, then this gene might improve fertility in their female siblings. And you know what? I wouldn't have a problem with this theoretically if they would just concede that a male homosexual is then termed as 'weaker' by nature. The trait is strong and beneficial in their female siblings, but is weak and detrimental to the male homosexual as it relates to his genes. Therefore, if this scenario is to be legitimate, it has adverse implications, which is what I've been saying since post 1.
Furthermore, this theory brings lesbianism into disrepute. That would mean that some other chance mutation causes women to experience lesbian tendencies in exchange for their brothers having an elevated sperm count, or whatever reason they come up with. This is how asinine the argument is, and how unfounded and unempirically they base their conclusions on.
Do you understand me?
This theory alleges that female homosexuality has nothing to do with male homosexuality. So what causes female homosexuality? And also, that male homosexuals are bascially cannon fodder, while their sisters reap the benefit of this gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Alasdair, posted 05-18-2006 6:55 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 243 (313574)
05-19-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Chiroptera
05-18-2006 7:18 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
Your stated problem is that, naively, one would natural selection should eliminate homosexuality from a population.
No, that's not exactly what I'm arriving at, but that's an interesting consideration. Its not that I think homosexuals would 'die out' themselves. What I'm saying is, the stated goal of living organisms is to procreate. This is as basic at it gets. So, if the desire that nature refined in humans, in such a way as to compel them to to NOT procreate, then what does that say about homosexuals, speaking in terms of natural selection? Doesn't that mean that each and every homosexual is 'weak' on the merits of Darwinism? This isn't coming from my own suppositions. I'm merely showing how the two theories collide with some irreconciliable differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Chiroptera, posted 05-18-2006 7:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Chiroptera, posted 05-19-2006 2:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 243 (313577)
05-19-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
05-19-2006 2:35 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
quote:
What I'm saying is, the stated goal of living organisms is to procreate.
Living organisms do not have stated goals.
-
quote:
So, if the desire that nature refined in humans, in such a way as to compel them to to NOT procreate, then what does that say about homosexuals, speaking in terms of natural selection?
No. Natural selection simply means that some traits should be preferentially passed onto the next generation, and other traits should be preferentially eliminated. It doesn't matter how the traits are passed on, just that those traits do get passed on.
It is true that the most obvious way that a trait can be passed on is by the organism possessing that trait to reproduce and produce offspring that possess those traits. This seems to be the most common way and it is the most natural thing consider when a trait is observed in natural populations.
However, it is not the only way to pass a trait onto the next generation. Another way that is applicable to eusocial and social species (and may or may not be applicable to human homosexuality) is to ensure that other organisms that possess the trait, and which will probably (but not always) be close relatives and so will share other traits as well, will reproduce and pass on this trait. If this strategy produces more offspring over all with this trait than everyone trying to reproduce themselves will, then this trait will be favored by natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 243 (313578)
05-19-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jazzns
05-18-2006 7:20 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
It is not a mutation. At least it is not now. It probably was at one point in time and being that it improves the reproductive fitness of females it probably started in them.
Well, we can't say either way, now can we? But what we do know about nature that is fantastically evident is that life requires procreation. Removing the desire to mate with members of the opposite sex, effectively removes those genes from carrying on in prospective offspring.
It is not a malady. It is a gene.
It very well could be a malady. Who's to say that its not the product of some traumatic event on the microscopic scale that occured in the mother? That's why its hilarious that people are trying to convince me (and themselves) of this imagined genetic dialogue and presenting it as empiricism. This is a good theory. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, other than it refuses to recognize that its problematic in homosexuals, while sister reaps the benefits. Furthermore, it does nothing to help us understand female homosexuality. There are just too many unanswered questions and too many uncancelled variables at this point for people to start chastizing me.
You have some very strange and VERY WRONG ideas of how genetics works. What we are talking about here is not something that happens to a baby boy in-utero that is some kind of deformity.
That's been a consideration. Wouldn't you say that most deformities occur during mitosis or meiosis, when haploid is going to diploid? Is it impossible that the gay gene was at one time a point mutation? Sure it is. But its just as likely, if not more, that its due to a mutation that occurs instantly as opposed to it being apart of the DNA from a mutation that occured in their great-great-great grandfather. This is all taking into consideration that homosexuality is even on the genetic level. It may be glandular. It may be pyschological. It might be a conglomerate of all three. We simply haven't found what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jazzns, posted 05-18-2006 7:20 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2006 3:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 187 by Jazzns, posted 05-19-2006 4:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 190 by Chiroptera, posted 05-22-2006 2:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 186 of 243 (313581)
05-19-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Hyroglyphx
05-19-2006 2:56 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
While we're here:
Page Not Found | OHSU
shows a definite biological basis for homosexuality in sheep. Genetic? Apparently that's not known yet - but there are definitely biochemical differences between gay and straight rams.
Pederast fruit flies, too, but with better-established biochemistry:
Dopamine and Mushroom Bodies in Drosophila: Experience-Dependent and -Independent Aspects of Sexual Behavior

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3989 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 187 of 243 (313589)
05-19-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Hyroglyphx
05-19-2006 2:56 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
nemesis I think you need to decide what you are arguing and stick to it. I was operating with the understanding that you were trying to use the genetic basis for homosexuality as a refutation of evolution on the grounds that homosexual people are less fit because they have no desire to engage in activity that would result in procreation. To have that kind of a discussion we have to make the assumtion for the sake of argument that homosexuality is genetic.
If you then switch to say that we are not taking that assumption for the sake of argument then your whole point of the fitness level of homosexuals goes out the window. If homosexuality or altruism is not heritable there there is no point in having a discussion about the evolution of those traits or how they show that evolution could not have occurred.
So here we have two scenarios.
1. Altruism/Homosexuality/(Other non-obvious beneficial trait) is genetic. To rephrase, this means that this trait is passed on by the physiological makeup of the individual via there genes. If we operate under this assumtion then there are many examples and evidence already given that illustrate both the plausability and possibility of maintaining non-ideal genetic traits at some frequency in the population.
2. Altruism/Homosexuality/etc are not genetic. Therefore there is no problem explaning them in terms of evolution because evolution does not operate on characteristics that are not genetic.
So if you are going to continue to operate in the realm of 1 you need to stick to that basic assumtion or else all capability of having a reasonable discussion goes out the window. If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion then might I suggest you go start a blog.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 3009 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 188 of 243 (314096)
05-21-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 8:11 PM


Getting to my response
NJ,
I had promised to talked about altruism. So I will try to ignore the temptation to reply to posts since the other day.
Before discussing altruism it is important to come up with a common definition. In biology altruism is thought of in two ways, true altruism and apparent altruism. True altruism is defined as a voluntary behavior that results in a loss of reproductive fitness in one individual that increases the reproductive fitness of another individual. Apparent altruism is similar but a fitness gain can be observed for the 'altruist'.
True altruism does not exist in the broad scale of natural selection. A true altruist will be outcompeted in the cycle of life. But apparent altruism does exist and can prosper. It can even closely mimic true altruism provided that the long term fitness is not lost. Also altruism may be a spandrel a la Gould.
Kin selection is a great example. Protecting your children has an obvious selective advantage. Protecting your relative's children also has a selective advantage. But what about Bob's kids? Bob is out hunting. Might as well take care of them too. If it is not too much trouble it works out. He will undoubtedly take care of your kids when you are out hunting. All of this makes good old fashioned natural selection sense. This is called tit-for-tat. Individuals in a group more likely to protect others in the group (kin or non kin) are more likly to prosper. So the gene to take care of your own progeny can be linked to a gene (if they are not different) to a gene to protect unrelated members of your group. Not for the good of the group, but for good of yourself (meaning genetic heritage).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 8:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2591 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 189 of 243 (314312)
05-22-2006 10:18 AM


Altruism and teamwork
NJ, you consistently say that altruism has nothing to do with teamwork.
here is where you are wrong. consider the example I posted on this thread about the bacteria working together to form a spore for their survival. Quite a few of those bacteria died, and reciev no benefits from making the swarm. So why do it? teamwork is undoubetdly a part of altruism.
Also, what about the pack of hunters. If I help you hunt, I'm going to get less than if I were to hunt on my own and take down that moose. In this case, it's altruistic because I am willfully decreasing the amount of resources I recieve.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 243 (314386)
05-22-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Hyroglyphx
05-19-2006 2:56 PM


refusing to gloss over miscomprehension
quote:
That's why its hilarious that people are trying to convince me (and themselves) of this imagined genetic dialogue and presenting it as empiricism.
What is hilarious is that you still cannot seem to figure out what it is we are trying to explain to you. Only a couple of posts have ever mentioned any empirical research on this topic. The only thing that anyone is trying to explain to you is that neither altruism nor homosexuality present any kind of theoretical problem for the Theory of Evolution. So far you, too, have failed to present any kind of empirical claims; you merely assert that altruism and homosexuality present a problem for evolution, and you give a theoretical argument for this. In response, all I and most everyone else have done is show why your theoretical musings are insufficient and incomplete. Altruism and homosexuality fit nicely in evolutionary theory.
So far, there is no need to answer your arguments with empirical findings. All you have is an argument from incredulity. Your argument is, "This is not possible." As I stated before, the opposite of "This is impossible" is not "This has occurred." The opposite of "This is impossible" is "This is possible". Thus, to refute your argument of incredulity all that is needed is to show that the possibilities exist.
Your argument consists of: (1) "I understand that the theory of evolution says this."
(2) "I understand that homosexuality does this."
(3) "Therefore, the existence of homosexual behavior contradicts the theory of evolution."
However, we have pointed out several times that the theory of evolution does not say what you think it does. Furthermore, we have pointed out the possibility that homosexuality does more than you think it does (and, I will repeat, all that is needed to demolish an argument of incredulity is to show that such possibilities exist). Your knowledge of biology, the theory of evolution, animal behavior, human behavior, human cultures, and homosexuality in particlur is very incomplete -- enough that I don't think you have really studied any of these issues in any real depth (aside from Christian apologetic sources, perhaps).
The conclusion that you continue to try to draw might follow if your misunderstandings about the subject were accurate fact; however, very little of what you have posted to date is accurate, and most of what you have posted demonstrates profound misunderstandings of the subjects, misunderstandings that you refuse to change despite people telling you again and again where your errors lie.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-19-2006 2:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 243 (314775)
05-23-2006 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Lithodid-Man
05-19-2006 5:23 AM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Charles Darwin never indicated he had all of the answers. Many posts later you were asked if you had ever read Origin. This statement demonstrates that you have not read Origin or anything by Darwin for that matter. Darwin was one of the most unassuming and humble figures in scientific history.
I have read Origins all the way through. Now, I would agree that Darwin was known for his candor. If you had read all of what I've said about Darwin here on EvC you'd know that I have repeatedly complimented him. My statement concerning him didn't have to do with any percieved arrogance, it had to do with the fact that though we all think we are 'right' or 'correct' in our assessment, it doesn't always make it so. Darwin was no exception.
Don't cut down Darwin without reading him yourself.
Again, I have read his works. But i understand your frustration and I have similar beliefs concerning the Bible. 9 out of 10 times, the biggest critics have read little more than a chapter in their lifetime so that their criticism is unwarranted and unfounded.
This type of comment arises again and again here at EvC. Science does not rely on direct observation in the sense of seeing something.
I would agree that we don't have to see things in order for 'things' to be real. For instance, we don't see gravity and we don't see wind. However, we do see their effects quite clearly. I can't see the wind but I can see it manifest itself when it blows through the trees. If macroevloution were legitimate, then we should expect to see some type of evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.
Macroevolutionary change (the term has no real meaning BTW, it is just evolutionary change used by creationists to explain changes between 'kinds') has been observed over and over again via fossils, genetics, etc.
The term is real as evidenced to the countless referrences given by strict naturalists. Gould, Eldridge, and Dawkins (to name a few off the top of my head) have referrenced the terminology.
As far as them being observed 'over and over again' kind of goes against them not having a direct observation. We've all heard of the handful of referrences given to us, such as, Pakicetus to Ambulocetus, but the evidence of such said gradations leaves me undesired.
(I am ignoring 'autonomy, I have no idea what you mean here)
The higher the autonomy, the less it is dependant on its immediate enviornment to help its survival. An organism that exhibits a high level of intelligence is very autonomous. That's all that means.
A universal trend is for parasites to be simpler in organization (loss or degeneration of nervous system, digestive, etc) from their ancestors and non-parasitic relatives. We see the same trend in commensal species that are non-parasitic.
How can you or anyone posit that there is not a definitive direction within the evolutionary model? If things are becoming more complex, and that complexity aids in their survival, then how is it not indicative of a direction? If life started out as single-celled, to multicelled, followng a linear trend from lower to higher, then evolving does indicate a clear direction. We know that things aren't inexplicably becoming 'less' evolved, becoming less autonomous, or less complex. And why not, if evolution has no direction and serves no real purpose?
I strongly advise that you look up these references rather than trust creationist sources on them.
As a neonate in 1972, punctuated equilibrium entered the world in unusual guise. We claimed no new discovery, but only a novel interpretation for the oldest and most robust of palaeontological observations: the geologically instantaneous origination and subsequent stability (often for millions of years) of palaeontological 'morphospecies'. This observation had long been ascribed, by Darwin and others, to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record, and was therefore read in a negative light--as missing information about evolution (defined in standard palaeontological textbooks of the time 9 as continuous anagenetic transformation or populations, or phyletic gradualism).
In a strictly logical sense, this negative explanation worked and preserved gradualism, then falsely equated with evolution itself, amidst an astonishing lack of evidence for this putative main signal of Darwinism. But think of the practical or heuristic dilemma for working paleontologists: if evolution meant gradualism, and imperfection precluded the observation of such steady change, then scientists could not access the very phenomenon that both motivated their interest and built life's history. As young, committed and ambitious parents, we therefore proposed punctuated equilibrium, hoping to validate our profession's primary data as signal rather than void. We realized that a standard biological account. Mayr's 10 peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations.
-Stephen Jay Gould
He goes on to say how Creationists distort what the theory actually means, but its very clear as to what they mean.
But in fact, Gould and Eldredge argued, the fossil record was quite rich in some places and very adequate for seeing patterns of stasis, not gradual change. The problem is that "people just didn't see the evidence of stasis," says geologist-paleontologist Carlton Brett of the University of Cincinnati. "They didn't see the obvious pattern of stasis even though it was right in front of their eyes. Because they had a preconceived idea that they should be seeing gradual change, they failed to see the obvious pattern of stasis. -Keay Davidson
Allow me to paraphrase: 'Whenever evidence is in our favor, there was an obvious sequence of gradations that are clearly visable in the strata layer. But, if ever there is a lack of evidence, its only because that organism has experienced stasis. Whenever there is no evidence, its because we just can't see it.'
three members of the genus Latimeria (one undescribed). They belong to a genus that is unknown in the fossil record. The word coelacanth refers to any member of the subclass Coelacanthimorpha. Please learn about taxonomy before presuming to know such things. Also, please look at fossil coelacanths and note they are under 30 cm in length (usually) and freshwater rather than over 1 meter and deep saltwater before you say "no different".
Because coelacanths have lobed fins evolutionists thought them to be ancestors of the first amphibians, and hence, us. The earliest coelacanth appears in the fossil record in the Devonian period about 375 million years ago [ET*]. The last fossil was dated at about 80 million years ago [E*] in the Cretaceous period. The discovery of living coelacanths in this century electrified the scientific world. A fish that had thought to have died out with the dinosaurs was found alive. The first was taken in 1938 about three miles from the mouth of the Chalumna River, southwest of East London, South Africa. The second was caught in 1952 off Anjouan Island in the Comores Islands, northwest of Madagascar. Another was discovered off Sulawesi, Indonesia in 1998. The Indonesian locals call the coelacanth Rajah Laut, "King of the Sea."
How could the Coelacanth disappear for over 80 million years [ET*] and then turn up alive and well in the twentieth century?44
In 1987, a German naturalist, Hans Fricke, observed and photographed coelacanths in their habitat off Grand Comoro Island. He found that they swam forward, backward, and even tilted head down, but never once walked, crawled, or otherwise moved on the bottom with their lobed fins, as some thought. So the coelacanth would never have moved up on land as hypothesized in the evolutionary scheme. It wasn't a missing link after all; it was a fish and it always had been a fish - for 400 million years
Loading...
It is where game theory comes into play.
Your game theory scenario works brilliantly with the human mind, however, the issue is whether or not morality and ethics and altruism could have arisen through evolution, which was not addressed anywhere in your assessment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-19-2006 5:23 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Wounded King, posted 05-24-2006 4:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 193 by Chiroptera, posted 05-24-2006 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 194 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2006 3:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 192 of 243 (314806)
05-24-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hyroglyphx
05-23-2006 10:08 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
the evidence of such said gradations leaves me undesired.
I don't know what this means but it sounds about right to me.
We know that things aren't inexplicably becoming 'less' evolved, becoming less autonomous, or less complex.
Exactly the opposite of what is the case. The exact examples you are replying to are of organisms which are evolving to become less autonomous and arguably less complex. Simply pretending it isn't so is not good enough, if you think that the scientific research into genomic reduction is flawed then make a case, but you can't expect us all to just blithely accept your word for it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 9:50 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 243 (314897)
05-24-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hyroglyphx
05-23-2006 10:08 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
quote:
I would agree that we don't have to see things in order for 'things' to be real. For instance, we don't see gravity and we don't see wind. However, we do see their effects quite clearly.
And we very clearly see the effects of common descent. You should join (or start) a thread about the actual evidence we have from which we can deduce common descent and by which common descent is confirmed. (By the way, my favorite piece of evidence is the hierarchical classification of species, but the fossil record is a good one as well -- just to get you thinking about possible topics.)
-
quote:
If life started out as single-celled, to multicelled, followng a linear trend from lower to higher, then evolving does indicate a clear direction.
Life is still mostly single-celled. It is true that over time there appears a species or two that is "more complex" than what has appeared before, but there is no indication that this is a "clear direction".
Consider the colonization of North American by the first humans. The first ones crossed from Siberia to Alaska. In each succeeding generation some went a little in one direction and settled, others went a little in another direction and settled, and eventually people reached the tip of South America. Looking at it, it would seem that there was a "clear direction" of settlement toward the tip of South America, but it was just people wandering fairly aimlessly to new lands in any direction as the old territories became filled.
In the same way, the only reason that it looks as if there is a "clear direction" toward more complexity is that the possible "more complex" body plans are not yet populated, so whenever a population, as random variations are selected, populate a "more complex" body plan, this is going to be noticed.
-
quote:
but the evidence of such said gradations leaves me undesired.
Yeah, that's a problem. But continue to practice good hygiene, and learn to be polite and friendly to people and you'll be amazed at the results.
-
quote:
the issue is whether or not morality and ethics and altruism could have arisen through evolution, which was not addressed anywhere in your assessment.
Well, I don't know about Lithodid-Man's assessment to which you are replying, but this issue has been addressed repeated in many, many posts that have been written to you.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 10:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 194 of 243 (314922)
05-24-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hyroglyphx
05-23-2006 10:08 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
quote:
I would agree that we don't have to see things in order for 'things' to be real. For instance, we don't see gravity and we don't see wind. However, we do see their effects quite clearly. I can't see the wind but I can see it manifest itself when it blows through the trees. If macroevloution were legitimate, then we should expect to see some type of evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.
http://EvC Forum: What's not Macro about Chlorella v? -->EvC Forum: What's not Macro about Chlorella v?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-24-2006 4:52 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6352 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 195 of 243 (314930)
05-24-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Alasdair
05-24-2006 3:36 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
quote:
If macroevloution were legitimate, then we should expect to see some type of evidence. Unfortunately, there is none.
You're right, there's no evidence for macroevolution at all... except for the fossil record, molecular biology, DNA, comparative anatomy, embryology, and almost every other field in biology.
The fossil record shows so much clear change across species over time. The fish to amphibian transition is very clear: lungs and gills occur simultaneously, fins show gradation into arms and hands with digits, the head separates from the shoulder which creates the vertebrate neck, rib formation to brace organs from gravity, and several others. There are at least five species in this transition each from rock that is in correct chronological order for this sequence including tiktaalik and acanthostega.
Then there is the molecular biological evidence. The code that rna uses to make the amino acids that make up proteins is redundant. Therefor different protein sequences can code for the same protein. Thus, you would expect that only related organisms would share the same protein sequences. That's exactly what we see. It has been calculated the protein Cytochrome c has a possible 10^93 (that's a 1 with 93 zeros after it) possible sequences. So, obviously species that share protein sequences such as this are related and that is among the strongest evidences that species come from other species, or macroevolution. BTW we share our cytochrome c with chimpanzees!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2006 3:36 PM Alasdair has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 11:13 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024